Interesting theory about homosexuality

[Guest]

Someone else call her a slut for a change?????

*MWAH!*

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Theism has no bearing on this conversation.

You said that all statistics can be used to affirm or deny a given proposition. I presented the situation. Please show me how you can prove otherwise using the statistics given.

It's not "all opinion". Statistics gained from a study of placebos are not "opinion on placebos". The statistics taken from the success of the polio vaccine were not "a matter of opinion". The statistics measured out from "people who suffered errors or mishandling of their votes" in the last Presidential election weren't "opinion".

How, as an example, is the national census' statistics for racial percentages "all a matter of opinion"?

Oh now, haven't we got on our soapbox again Joe??

Yes it is, all opinion. It's peoples opinions, that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

Statistics merely suggest Joe, not prove. It's opinion that says whether they are factually accurate.

Who gives a dolly fuck, about the national census' statistics for racial percentages, other than politicians, or social nobodies, who probably had the cencus produced, to prove their point about something. Because we were of the opinion that...... let's prove it's so.

We got to this point, by you saying that most of what I said wouldn't be substantiated by findings of psychology.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that what the psychobabblers say is total fact. They, like most of us, generalise. And thay, like us, sometimes get it wrong. Hence many varying theories and a myriad of subjects.

Anyway, That's my opinion for the night. I've tagged this and will return tomorrow as it's late here now. 11.20PM in fact and I have things to do tomorrow.

Night all.

I'll be back! (In any accent you like!)

 

[Guest]

Night Sexy!

(Sorry, couldn't resist! )

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lewdandlicentious
Oh now, haven't we got on our soapbox again Joe??

Not hardly.

Yes it is, all opinion. It's peoples opinions, that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

That's not the question... the question is "how is it possible to interpret the statistics from that sample in such a way as to deny the conclusion?" As a matter of fact, that's been the question since I proposed it.

Statistics merely suggest Joe, not prove. It's opinion that says whether they are factually accurate.

Again, that isn't the question. The question was how is it evidentiary that all statistics can affirm or deny a given proposition?

Who gives a dolly fuck, about the national census' statistics for racial percentages, other than politicians, or social nobodies, who probably had the cencus produced, to prove their point about something. Because we were of the opinion that...... let's prove it's so.

As a matter of course, having family in politics, I can think of no instance where the annual census was directed by a particular politican for the purposes of proving his own point. Past that, that isn't the issue. The issue is "how is the conclusions of percentage based on the national census" simple a matter of opinion? As opposed to, to give dimension, a factual report of population sample?

We got to this point, by you saying that most of what I said wouldn't be substantiated by findings of psychology.

No, to be more clear, I was talking to Lou, yourself, and others. And, from the studies done, so far, with proper peer reviewed method... a conclusion that there is strong gender differences hasn't been substantiated. In order for that to be in question, we'd have to question the studies (something that is done all the time, professionally speaking, but never on the grounds of "hey, that's just... like... your opinion, man").

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that what the psychobabblers say is total fact. They, like most of us, generalise. And thay, like us, sometimes get it wrong. Hence many varying theories and a myriad of subjects.

No, it surely doesn't--and I wouldn't over-extend my point by saying it was. But, opinions based on rational analysis of facts are superior--in truth value--to opinions based on having opinions. There is a marked difference in believing that the majority of one's community is African-American because of a local census taken by objective polling showing that a vast majority of the community is African-American than a belief that one's community is African-American because you just happen to think so.

 

[Liar]

Ah, but there are very reasonable and scientific explanation for moss and rainbows.

There's a scientific explanation to what moss and rainbows are.
That's easy, and there is one for gays too: people who fancy the same gender.

Now as to why they are...that's when we're stepping into philosophy.

Why are there rainbows? So that humidity can look pretty?

#L

 

[minsue]

There's a scientific explanation to what moss and rainbows are.
That's easy, and there is one for gays too: people who fancy the same gender.

Now as to why they are...that's when we're stepping into philosophy.

Why are there rainbows? So that humidity can look pretty?

#L

*standing and applauding*

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I remember a famous study that was done a long time ago on rat population density. They crowded lab rats into a kind of lab rat Manhattan to see what would happen to them. According to the researchers, not only did the levels of rat-on-rat violence and negligent-mothering go up, but levels of homosexual rat behavior went up too. (No mention of whether rat discos and leather bars sprung up though.) They attributed it all to stress caused by population density.

If this 'culling' theory has anything to it, then levels of human homosexuality should correlate strongly to levels of population density around the world, independent of culture and country. I would think a correlation that obvious would have been noticed by now.

Before this, the last "explanation" for homosexual behavior I heard attributed it to the hormones that are fed to cows to increase milk production. These are mainly female sex hormones. Supposedly the cow-chick hormones somehow turn milk drinkers and beef-eaters femme.

No explanation was given for why milk and beef don't turn everyone who ingests them gay.

It's just more bullshit.

---dr.M.

 

[minsue]

It's just more bullshit.

---dr.M.

No pun intended, I hope?

 

[Guest]

Why are there rainbows? So that humidity can look pretty?

#L

Because of light refracting (a specific kind of refraction, called dispertion).

Ok, I could go into a whole physics lesson here, but I won't.

They aren't magic. They aren't the stuff of myth or conjecture. They aren't unexplainable.

I said I wasn't gonna give a physics lesson, but I do feel driven to give a very simple explanation.

Light is made up of a spectrum of colours. White light (normal) light is made up of a mixture of all the colours of the spectrum.

When it rains, water droplets are in the air. If it is showering, and the sun pokes its head out from behind the clouds, the rays of light from the sun beam through those water droplets. The white light from those beams gets refracted and dispersed, and the splits into all the colours of the pretty rainbow.

Why are they circular? Because the Earth is round.

That is why there are rainbows. Science can explain it. Nothing philosophical about it, at all. There is a reason for their coming about, and we know what it is.

Lou

 

[Liar]

No explanation was given for why milk and beef don't turn everyone who ingests them gay.

Or wat the hell a gay vegan is, I assume.

#L

 

[Liar]

Because of light refracting (a specific kind of refraction, called dispertion).

Ok, I could go into a whole physics lesson here, but I won't.

They aren't magic. They aren't the stuff of myth or conjecture. They aren't unexplainable.

I said I wasn't gonna give a physics lesson, but I do feel driven to give a very simple explanation.

Light is made up of a spectrum of colours. White light (normal) light is made up of a mixture of all the colours of the spectrum.

When it rains, water droplets are in the air. If it is showering, and the sun pokes its head out from behind the clouds, the rays of light from the sun beam through those water droplets. The white light from those beams gets refracted and dispersed, and the splits into all the colours of the pretty rainbow.

Why are they circular? Because the Earth is round.

That is why there are rainbows. Science can explain it. Nothing philosophical about it, at all. There is a reason for their coming about, and we know what it is.

Lou

Lou, I know all of that. Never said they were magic.

(But...rainbows aren't circular because the earth is round, but because the breaking of the visible colors always occur in the same angle to the source point. Sorry, just nitpicking. )

But that's still how rainbows work.
I know a fair lot about the mechanics of a lot of things, but the reasons for the mechanics to be as they are, the reason why 2+5=7....I have absolutely no idea.

#L

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Liar
the reason why 2+5=7....I have absolutely no idea.

Logical necessity.

 

[Liar]

Logical necessity.

So I'm told. But why is it that?

It's when all reasoning boils down to "because that's the way it is", which all reasoning eventually does, and there are still the inquisitive five year old's "why?" to answer that one realises that one knows, when it comes down to it, sod all.

Was this thread about gays?
Pardon moi.

 

[tolyk]

But that's still how rainbows work.
I know a fair lot about the mechanics of a lot of things, but the reasons for the mechanics to be as they are, the reason why 2+5=7....I have absolutely no idea.

#L

Science tells us how, philosophy asks why it happens at all. Two completely different things.

(Supporting your comment of why rainbows happen)

And Joe, you are the resident philosopher/logician, why do you say it is a logical necessity? We're the ones who made up the numbers (named them.. one is one because we declared it so)

You're answer isn't very logical in this case. 2+5=7 isn't about logic, it is about math, which are both seperate entities and can exist without the other. Math has rules, and some of them aren't logical at all, that it works by and those rules are what say 2+5=7, but why do they state that?

That was his question, I do believe.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Why are there rainbows? So that humidity can look pretty?

#L

Because humidity is an uncaring apathetic prism and wanted greed-centric Irish folk to waste their lives searching for the bloody end.

That combined with the fact that Rain never leaves England lends evidence to the theory that humidity is English.



Homosexuality, desire to reproduce, who we fall in love with. It's all part of the just cause. There are undoubtadly biological reasons. Brain chemicals and hormones triggered by stimulae. It wouldn't happen without that. There are possibly circumstantial or environmental reasons. Who knows what the story of a 100% gay man born and raised on an island of beautiful women would be. Would he lust himself?

The end product is that things like this are difficult to pin down to one particular reason or incident. Who can say accurately the exact steps by which stuff is stored and accessed. Even one as my myself who keeps close introspective tabs on myself and have done so from early age would be hard pressed to deliver the reason for each particular point of my character and I am not above surprise. It wasn't until extremely recently that one of my personality's true purpose and motivation were revealed.

Overall, it's a complicated world inside the mind and sometimes "just cause" is the best and most worthwhile explanation.

 

[minsue]

So I'm told. But why is it that?

It's when all reasoning boils down to "because that's the way it is", which all reasoning eventually does, and there are still the inquisitive five year old's "why?" to answer that one realises that one knows, when it comes down to it, sod all.

Was this thread about gays?
Pardon moi.

It was, but I for one am grateful to know that others ask that same "Why?"

 

[tolyk]

It was, but I for one am grateful to know that others ask that same "Why?"

Its a great question, but doesn't tend to get you very good answers. So asking it is often a disappointment, but still fun

 

[minsue]

Its a great question, but doesn't tend to get you very good answers. So asking it is often a disappointment, but still fun

Fun.....torment......either way

 

[SlickTony]

Not to mention the interesting article I read the other day, about a woman who burst while giving birth, so that there was a big hole in the wall between her vagina and her anus. When she took a dump, everything came out of the wrong opening, so to speak...

That's called a fistula, and nowadays can be corrected by surgery. Someone ought to have fixed hers.

 

[cantdog]

Rainbows are a virtual image. They are shaped circularly because of the light angles to the observer, not the sourcepoint; that's the determinant. I always see a rainbow with the light source at my back, and I can move it, relative to real images, by displacing myself.

Play with a garden hose sometime.

2 + 5 = 11 anyway, to the base 6. There is a logical necessity there as well. Put the rules in, get the results out, logically and inevitably.

Statistcal math is the math to describe random distributions. It has very specific uses. Tolerances in fabrication, for example. When I was a boy, plenty of things were mass produced, and a lot of times the mass-produced parts didn't fit very well. Ask a man who bought a broom handle Mauser pistol, or the Carcano that killed Kennedy. There were variations in the sizes of the parts that were quite noticeable.

This was corrected, largely, through the application of statistical math to the error rates. The errors on the boring of a hole into a chunk of machined steel can be analyzed. To do it, use statistical math-- it's a random process, the results of the recorded errors arrange themselves in a bell curve every time, and the bell curve is the domain of that sort of math.

Statistical analysis enabled micro-adjustments, shrinking the errors and allowing greater and greater accuracies. It was invented by an American, this idea, but he first got his funding in Japan. "Made in Japan," when I was young, was a term of opprobrium. It implied shoddy goods. But the stats fixed all that, and after a decade, the Japanese rejected shipments of American made cars, because the parts didn't meet their own specs. Japanese manufacture had gone leaps and bounds into the future, using statistical analysis.

So there is no need to pan statistics per se. In that context, every assembly line uses the procedures, if their product needs to be made to close tolerances.

Human behavior, or animal behavior, for that matter, is not as reliable and predictable as the behavior of a drill into its intended steel. That's where all scientific methods, using measurement and inference, lose their iron grip.

Physics is as old a science as psychology. It is nearly complete. It has described nearly all that falls within its sphere. Ditto Chemistry. Psychology is still in its infancy as a science, it has no determinable boundaries as to its sphere. It has described thousands of different areas of the brain which show activity in certain conditions and performing certain tasks, but it cannot predict well the result of lesions to those parts of the brain, because there is always some brain which doesn't do what they say it ought to. And behavior is even worse. People will do any damn thing, within only very general limits. Intuitive descriptions fare just as well as scientific ones at the task of predicting human behaviors. There isn't even a good definition of the most basic concepts: mind, personality.

Logical necessities do not apply to human behaviors, and stats are tentatively and only grossly useful. Stats about racial composition, even. They do not sample based on a color chart, you know. "A skin having its major reflection centering on the wavelength x is defined as black, one at y is defined as white." No indeed.

Some methods use the opinion of the interviewer, who checks a box without asking a question. "I'm talking to a black person," thinks the interviewer, and checks the box for that.

Sometimes the people asking the questions do not see their respondents, and ask them to define themselves. The answer is culturally based, usually. An albino identifies with his culture, not the color of his skin. Same with most folks answering those questions, unless they lie on a whim, or to piss someone off, or to screw up the man.

No. Sciences of the "mind," whatever that is, and sciences of human behavior, are still groping.

cantdog

 

[Liar]

Rainbows are a virtual image. They are shaped circularly because of the light angles to the observer, not the sourcepoint; that's the determinant.

I stand corrected.

No. Sciences of the "mind," whatever that is, and sciences of human behavior, are still groping.

And quite often about groping.

#L

 

[cantdog]

Sorry, Liar. I played with a garden hose, and lots of fire hoses, too. It went to my head.

I like groping, and being groped, but not all the time, by a long chalk. Where do I draw that line? Where do most people draw it? You can collect them, quantize them, and analyze the quantities with statistics, but the input is subjective, and the output will be pretty useless for predicting. Human behavior is a bear, man. And I for one am glad of it. If they had a real science, we'd be herded around like sheep. And sheep herding is not an infallible set of tools, either.

My relative freedom depends on this particular "science" having failed of its object.

cantdog

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by tolyk
Science tells us how, philosophy asks why it happens at all. Two completely different things.

(Supporting your comment of why rainbows happen)

And Joe, you are the resident philosopher/logician, why do you say it is a logical necessity? We're the ones who made up the numbers (named them.. one is one because we declared it so)

You're answer isn't very logical in this case. 2+5=7 isn't about logic, it is about math, which are both seperate entities and can exist without the other. Math has rules, and some of them aren't logical at all, that it works by and those rules are what say 2+5=7, but why do they state that?

That was his question, I do believe.

Simply put, there are issues with inconcievability--which here is best described as "something that cannot be maintained by the mind either in form or function due to its strict impossibility"--and the difference between utterance and language.

So, while we might be inclined to say "Unicorns are impossible", we can still concieve of, describe, and interact with the concept of "unicorns"--meaning that while they don't exist, it isn't impossible that they might. However, "a round square is impossible" is a matter of truth in rational conceivability. "Round square" has no description, it has no form or function that we can cognitively either understand or interact with. Its lack of ability to be apprehended by conception is an important factor in explaining its impossibility (logicians, like me, will most likely say "If round-squares can exist, they can only exist in such a way that we cannot understand them, conceptualize them, form them, function them, or interact with them even referentially... which means 'existance' doesn't carry any real meaning").

Utterance and Language are very different terms, for us. For instance, "round-square" is an utterance--it doesn't actually mean anything. It doesn't refer to anything in the world. It doesn't refer to anything concieved of in the mind. It lacks conception, and certainly lacks linguistic referrant. Just because you can say sounds doesn't mean those sounds, when put together, mean anything in the end. "Sifldoustoeppzzz" and "round-square" have the exact same referrent... absolutely nothing.

So, that brings us to a part of the nature of Logical Necessity (by showing a little by what we mean with "Logical Impossibility").

You say that "2=5=7" is math and not logic, but honestly... in such a case as this, they are quite the same. Logic is nothing more than the science (study) of the relationships between propositions and concepts. "2" is a concept, "addition" is a conceptual process, "5" and "7" are concepts, and "equals" is conclusion. The formula presented is one of the simplest forms of logic. Based on the propositions given, the conclusion is a necessary truth.

You bring up our naming of numbers, but language isn't even necessary. We invented, say, the word "two"... but we didn't invent "two-ness" or "a thing and another thing, conceptually together". Numbers are, speaking as a Logician, "conceptual inevitables" or "necessities". Going back to the previous example... lets say that we have the proposition "A world without numbers", where we're trying to say that there could, possibly, be a universe that never gave birth to people and, thus, wouldn't have enumeration.

The problem with concieving of this world isn't in our lack of ability to utter it--we can surely say "a world without numbers"--but because we can't describe this world on any meaningful level (referentially) or interact with it or form it or function it (imagine a world where there is absolutely no multiple or singular things, the only sort of world that satisfies that is a world where there is absolutely nothing)... it remains an utterance with no meaning.

Numbers exist (whether they're actually a part of the metaphysic of the universe or just a natural precept is sort of up in the air) independant of our preference or mind of them. Numbers are the hallmark of objectivity in this respect. And, once we can admit that enummeration exists independant of us... mathematics is a logical follow-through. If a thing exist and another thing (specifically not the first thing) also exists, two things exist--our definition of two or word for "two" isn't a precursor for that, conceptually.

As for Math having rules that aren't logical at all. One of my better friends is a Mathimetician, we take a regular lunch together (he has a wacky love for philosophy). We got into a discussion about how closely Math and Logic actually were--because I was of the opinion that they diverged a great deal based on the half-assed remarks about Chaos Math and all that from TV.

He told me that math is based on the fundamental assumption that Logic is perfectly, internally referential (that Logic, by itself, doesn't generate contradictions); because Math is entirely based on the Laws of Logic. Should the Laws be in question, the very nature of Math is in question. I even went so far as to ask him about "Chaos Math" and whatnot--his response was that theoretical constructs in mathematics are theoretical for two reasons: (1) they give us information that has shown a certain probability of accuracy and (2) they haven't been proven ("proof" being a product of Logic).

So, I think Math and Logic are most likely the same thing... or that Math is based on the infallibility of Logic, at least.

 

[cantdog]

I agree. I think of logic as sort of the math of statements. It even comes in graphic form, like geometry, with Venn diagrams and diagrams of sets. I await with glee a calculus of logic, which I personally would find very satisfying.

cantdog

 

[sweetnpetite]

I've only read the first page-- but maybe homosexuals *and* other non-reproducing people ("hermits" "spinsters" infertile people) are purposely created for several purposes- amoung them, to nurture other children, to care for orphaned and abandoned children, as well as to expend time and energy on other pursuits to benefit life on the planet (whatever they may be)

Such as with ants (and surely other creatures) some members reproduce and others have other roles that do not include reproduction.

(So the original theory would be *partially* right)

That's my theory.